Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[orogenicman]

If a museum makes up stuff and present it as real, it is sham.

That bullshit museum would be a sham even if it paid people to go visit.

So you admit that the Creation museum is a sham. Small steps, there, rev. Small steps.

[pocaracas]

If a museum makes up stuff and present it as real, it is sham.

That bullshit museum would be a sham even if it paid people to go visit.

So you admit that the Creation museum is a sham. Small steps, there, rev. Small steps.

I think someone got their quotes messed up...
That sounds more like Faith No More or Rampant A.I....
Ahhh, here's the correct quote:

So if a museum charges for admission so they can pay their bills, and staff, it is a sham? Come on now.

If a museum makes up stuff and present it as real, it is sham.

That bullshit museum would be a sham even if it paid people to go visit.

[Revelation777]

If I went to a local graveyard, dug up every ones bones, and lined the various bodies just so, I could create a convincing lineup showing evolution

---

I can if we had a time machine...

But my take is that no, inert matter can't produce life

Actually no you couldn't. Our ancestors have larger canines and more protruding and they all have much stronger brow ridges then homo sapiens.

Looks like a homo sapien that over time changed a bit.

---

Is the harsh truth is that once you die your dead, that's it, you no longer exist?

It is indeed the harsh truth that theists cannot accept, which is why they create the comforting lie of god and heaven.

The thought is comforting, but it is not a lie.

---

Is the harsh truth is that once you die your dead, that's it, you no longer exist?

It is indeed the harsh truth that theists cannot accept, which is why they create the comforting lie of god and heaven.

The thought is comforting, but it is not a lie.

---

Part of the problem lies is what you guys see as a transitional fossil, I don't. That is why we are at a standstill and we need to go to Argument #1 but I am waiting for something.

Yes, that is the problem: we see things as transitional fossils based on detailed cladographic, genetic and morphological study done by qualified scientists over decades, and you don't see anything as a transitional fossil based on the fact that you don't understand what half the words I just used mean, all the while bolstering your opinions with the words of uneducated creationist conmen whose arguments essentially boil down to "in my ill informed opinion, this doesn't seem transitional to me."

One of our two sides is bothering with evidence and research, and the other is being an intractable bore.

And before I go, I did ask you to admit that you were wrong about the quotes that you sourced a few pages back, and that you were lied to from the people you got them from. Any progress on that basic level of accountability, Rev?

I already explained myself. Please stay on the topic. Thank you.

[pocaracas]

It is indeed the harsh truth that theists cannot accept, which is why they create the comforting lie of god and heaven.

The thought is comforting, but it is not a lie.

It is, most likely, a fabrication.
A fabrication that got passed on generation after generation, because it was convenient.
The common person is now "powerful" enough to see past that convenience and realize the story for what it is...
Some cling to the story, for its comforting value, yes... some day, that will not be required, one hopes... the story will lose its appeal, its allure and will fade away into myth and legend, like many other similar stories have fallen.

[Revelation777]

How does Tiktaalik not fit the definition of a transitional form?

It has fins like a fish, and also has rudimentary fingers like a reptile. The head of a croc and the gills of a fish. The ability to turn its head like a reptile, shoulders like a reptile, yet has scales like a fish.

There are others, but lets start there.

But it doesn't seem transitional to creationists, mostly because they never bother to define their terms in anything other than vagaries, specifically so they can move the goalposts like this.

We're arguing over a scientific term- transitional form- with somebody who doesn't care about science at all; of course there's going to be difficulties. Rev's idea of scientific is "what seems intuitively right to me at the time."

It think it may be time for you to watch Ben Stein's "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed" Very eye opening. I like the scientist who says life started on the backs of crystals. Sounds more appealing than cosmic foam or gel.

[Duke Guilmon]

What you refer to as transitional fossils I consider non-transitional fossils.

So no I guess, because when I posted that post on Archeopteryx I showed why it is one. So how can Archeopteryx be just a bird if it has more theropod traits than avian ones? Why was it a prediction if evolution was not true, and was know to exist only if evolution was right before it was discovered? I even gave the definition of transitional fossil before, so I guess no matter how much evidence you will just start with point A and to hell with the rest. That in fact is intellectual dishonesty.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Actually no you couldn't. Our ancestors have larger canines and more protruding and they all have much stronger brow ridges then homo sapiens.

Looks like a homo sapien that over time changed a bit

It is indeed the harsh truth that theists cannot accept, which is why they create the comforting lie of god and heaven.

The thought is comforting, but it is not a lie.

Yes, that is the problem: we see things as transitional fossils based on detailed cladographic, genetic and morphological study done by qualified scientists over decades, and you don't see anything as a transitional fossil based on the fact that you don't understand what half the words I just used mean, all the while bolstering your opinions with the words of uneducated creationist conmen whose arguments essentially boil down to "in my ill informed opinion, this doesn't seem transitional to me."

One of our two sides is bothering with evidence and research, and the other is being an intractable bore.

And before I go, I did ask you to admit that you were wrong about the quotes that you sourced a few pages back, and that you were lied to from the people you got them from. Any progress on that basic level of accountability, Rev?

I already explained myself. Please stay on the topic. Thank you.

[orogenicman]

So you admit that the Creation museum is a sham. Small steps, there, rev. Small steps.

I think someone got their quotes messed up...
That sounds more like Faith No More or Rampant A.I....
Ahhh, here's the correct quote:

If a museum makes up stuff and present it as real, it is sham.

That bullshit museum would be a sham even if it paid people to go visit.

My bad. Nevermind.

[Revelation777]

How does Tiktaalik not fit the definition of a transitional form?

It has fins like a fish, and also has rudimentary fingers like a reptile. The head of a croc and the gills of a fish. The ability to turn its head like a reptile, shoulders like a reptile, yet has scales like a fish.

There are others, but lets start there.

But it doesn't seem transitional to creationists, mostly because they never bother to define their terms in anything other than vagaries, specifically so they can move the goalposts like this.

We're arguing over a scientific term- transitional form- with somebody who doesn't care about science at all; of course there's going to be difficulties. Rev's idea of scientific is "what seems intuitively right to me at the time."

In my soon coming concluding statement I will refer to Tiktaalik.

[Rampant.A.I.]

So you're following up your post about how transitional forms don't exist by using a transitional form for another argument?

That's good.

Kind of late for a closing statement when the entire argument has been disproven. Seems like stalling.